I think that's out of order actually. He's ok - he takes a lot of crap and maybe gets hacked off. Happens to us all, seems to be the rules of the game here that it always ends up getting personal...your post is a classic example of it actually.

I don't share the views of Trump and SDW or Jubeium even but one thing's for sure, they take a lot of crap and - imo - handle it admirably.

I find it curious that the posters whose views I most oppose are actually the ones who handle the crap thrown at them the best most times and as such I would say that the three I named above (as well as a few others on 'the Right') are among the posters I most respect here - far more than the vast majority of 'liberals' who in the main are the more juvenile, uniformed and the first to resort to personal attacks.

Not all of them certainly but a significant number. It's also a better bet to actually have a real debate with the wongers here than with the 'lefties' - seems that way to me anyway so maybe we should lay off the ad homs and see how things appear then....just an idea....

Sego is correct. And I can say in my experience, he is one if the few here that have furthered discussion in a way that has caused me to reconsider my views and the basis for those views. It's what grown-ups call "progress" and "maturity." I've often found it a little weird how, in trying to win people's support of a position, that one ad-hom after another is the preferred tactic. Those things don't change people's thinking. Reasoned debate has the potential.

I believe that many here are just floating around life with a free floating hostility for anything that could be seen as even remotely supportive of conservatism or Bush, and are looking for a place to unload their own anger. It's one of the reasons I blew off this board for a couple of years. Why bother? It's hard to justify the time spent. I found kayaking with my kids and volunteering as a vocational mentor to be a much better use of my time.

Though I have huge disagreements with segovius over a number of issues, I'd say he's one of probably 5 users here that advance real understanding and makes compelling arguments for his side. I can also name 5 users here who have not yet, in my experience, contributed a single thing to winning people to their side. I just hope they feel better having gotten out some of their outrage at nameless, faceless people on a screen. Maybe they'll do it here, and not kick their dog after work.

I think that's out of order actually. He's ok - he takes a lot of crap and maybe gets hacked off. Happens to us all, seems to be the rules of the game here that it always ends up getting personal...your post is a classic example of it actually.

I don't share the views of Trump and SDW or Jubeium even but one thing's for sure, they take a lot of crap and - imo - handle it admirably.

I find it curious that the posters whose views I most oppose are actually the ones who handle the crap thrown at them the best most times and as such I would say that the three I named above (as well as a few others on 'the Right') are among the posters I most respect here - far more than the vast majority of 'liberals' who in the main are the more juvenile, uniformed and the first to resort to personal attacks.

Not all of them certainly but a significant number. It's also a better bet to actually have a real debate with the wongers here than with the 'lefties' - seems that way to me anyway so maybe we should lay off the ad homs and see how things appear then....just an idea....

I suppose I should have said, "what a mean thing to say".

Look at how he generalizes everything he says into a nice package that goes along nicely with his views.
eg.

Quote:

I'm not the one who claims to hate money, but then send my kids to school sick so I can go work for it. I'm not the one who says, let's pull our bases but give them our business for example. I'm not the one telling kids to starve so that the Grandpa who gambled and drank away his non-retirement can now retire and not work.

Sego is correct. And I can say in my experience, he is one if the few here that have furthered discussion in a way that has caused me to reconsider my views and the basis for those views. It's what grown-ups call "progress" and "maturity."

When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network, a series of semi-autonomous British Muslim terrorist groups linked by a single ideology, I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy.

By blaming the government for our actions, those who pushed the 'Blair's bombs' line did our propaganda work for us. More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology.

Article continues
Friday's attempt to cause mass destruction in London with strategically placed car bombs is so reminiscent of other recent British Islamic extremist plots that it is likely to have been carried out by my former peers.

And as with previous terror attacks, people are again articulating the line that violence carried out by Muslims is all to do with foreign policy. For example, yesterday on Radio 4's Today programme, the mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said: 'What all our intelligence shows about the opinions of disaffected young Muslims is the main driving force is not Afghanistan, it is mainly Iraq.'

He then refused to acknowledge the role of Islamist ideology in terrorism and said that the Muslim Brotherhood and those who give a religious mandate to suicide bombings in Palestine were genuinely representative of Islam.

I left the BJN in February 2006, but if I were still fighting for their cause, I'd be laughing once again. Mohammad Sidique Khan, the leader of the 7 July bombings, and I were both part of the BJN - I met him on two occasions - and though many British extremists are angered by the deaths of fellow Muslim across the world, what drove me and many of my peers to plot acts of extreme terror within Britain, our own homeland and abroad, was a sense that we were fighting for the creation of a revolutionary state that would eventually bring Islamic justice to the world.

How did this continuing violence come to be the means of promoting this (flawed) utopian goal? How do Islamic radicals justify such terror in the name of their religion? There isn't enough room to outline everything here, but the foundation of extremist reasoning rests upon a dualistic model of the world. Many Muslims may or may not agree with secularism but at the moment, formal Islamic theology, unlike Christian theology, does not allow for the separation of state and religion. There is no 'rendering unto Caesar' in Islamic theology because state and religion are considered to be one and the same. The centuries-old reasoning of Islamic jurists also extends to the world stage where the rules of interaction between Dar ul-Islam (the Land of Islam) and Dar ul-Kufr (the Land of Unbelief) have been set down to cover almost every matter of trade, peace and war.

What radicals and extremists do is to take these premises two steps further. Their first step has been to reason that since there is no Islamic state in existence, the whole world must be Dar ul-Kufr. Step two: since Islam must declare war on unbelief, they have declared war upon the whole world. Many of my former peers, myself included, were taught by Pakistani and British radical preachers that this reclassification of the globe as a Land of War (Dar ul-Harb) allows any Muslim to destroy the sanctity of the five rights that every human is granted under Islam: life, wealth, land, mind and belief. In Dar ul-Harb, anything goes, including the treachery and cowardice of attacking civilians.

This understanding of the global battlefield has been a source of friction for Muslims living in Britain. For decades, radicals have been exploiting these tensions between Islamic theology and the modern secular state for their benefit, typically by starting debate with the question: 'Are you British or Muslim?' But the main reason why radicals have managed to increase their following is because most Islamic institutions in Britain just don't want to talk about theology. They refuse to broach the difficult and often complex topic of violence within Islam and instead repeat the mantra that Islam is peace, focus on Islam as personal, and hope that all of this debate will go away.

This has left the territory of ideas open for radicals to claim as their own. I should know because, as a former extremist recruiter, every time mosque authorities banned us from their grounds, it felt like a moral and religious victory.

Outside Britain, there are those who try to reverse this two-step revisionism. A handful of scholars from the Middle East has tried to put radicalism back in the box by saying that the rules of war devised by Islamic jurists were always conceived with the existence of an Islamic state in mind, a state which would supposedly regulate jihad in a responsible Islamic fashion. In other words, individual Muslims don't have the authority to go around declaring global war in the name of Islam.

But there is a more fundamental reasoning that has struck me and a number of other people who have recently left radical Islamic networks as a far more potent argument because it involves stepping out of this dogmatic paradigm and recognising the reality of the world: Muslims don't actually live in the bipolar world of the Middle Ages any more.

The fact is that Muslims in Britain are citizens of this country. We are no longer migrants in a Land of Unbelief. For my generation, we were born here, raised here, schooled here, we work here and we'll stay here. But more than that, on a historically unprecedented scale, Muslims in Britain have been allowed to assert their religious identity through clothing, the construction of mosques, the building of cemeteries and equal rights in law.

However, it isn't enough for Muslims to say that because they feel at home in Britain they can simply ignore those passages of the Koran which instruct on killing unbelievers. By refusing to challenge centuries-old theological arguments, the tensions between Islamic theology and the modern world grow larger every day. It may be difficult to swallow but the reason why Abu Qatada - the Islamic scholar whom Palestinian militants recently called to be released in exchange for the kidnapped BBC journalist Alan Johnston - has a following is because he is extremely learned and his religious rulings are well argued. His opinions, though I now thoroughly disagree with them, have validity within the broad canon of Islam.

Since leaving the BJN, many Muslims have accused me of being a traitor. If I knew of any impending attack, then I would have no hesitation in going to the police, but I have not gone to the authorities, as some reports have suggested, and become an informer.

I believe that the issue of terrorism can be easily demystified if Muslims and non-Muslims start openly to discuss the ideas that fuel terrorism. (The Muslim community in Britain must slap itself awake from this state of denial and realise there is no shame in admitting the extremism within our families, communities and worldwide co-religionists.) However, demystification will not be achieved if the only bridges of engagement that are formed are between the BJN and the security services.

If our country is going to take on radicals and violent extremists, Muslim scholars must go back to the books and come forward with a refashioned set of rules and a revised understanding of the rights and responsibilities of Muslims whose homes and souls are firmly planted in what I'd like to term the Land of Co-existence. And when this new theological territory is opened up, Western Muslims will be able to liberate themselves from defunct models of the world, rewrite the rules of interaction and perhaps we will discover that the concept of killing in the name of Islam is no more than an anachronism.

We are talking about people who in the course of 65+ years never saved a dime and who never cultivated any friends and family to the point where someone would be willing to help and care about them.

Think about that for a second. That represents a life of utter selfishness. Why the heck should we subsidize that? Why would anyone want more of that or want the existing amount to stick around longer than it needs to?

I'm not going to play some bullshit game. Bad people need to go and if their own hands bring it about more quickly, better for the planet.

The issue with government is that it refuses to judge. It passes out all the retirement goodies with total indifference.

"Hey, did you spend your life beating and mentally abusing your children so they are total trainwrecks as adults, spent all your life earnings on vices like gambling and booze, and now are 65? Here is a nice big check each month so you can continue to do those things!"

Screw that!

No goodies just because you managed to survive being a selfish asshole and never got a clue for your entire life.

We are talking about people who in the course of 65+ years never saved a dime and who never cultivated any friends and family to the point where someone would be willing to help and care about them.

Think about that for a second. That represents a life of utter selfishness. Why the heck should we subsidize that? Why would anyone want more of that or want the existing amount to stick around longer than it needs to?

I'm not going to play some bullshit game. Bad people need to go and if their own hands bring it about more quickly, better for the planet.

The issue with government is that it refuses to judge. It passes out all the retirement goodies with total indifference.

"Hey, did you spend your life beating and mentally abusing your children so they are total trainwrecks as adults, spent all your life earnings on vices like gambling and booze, and now are 65? Here is a nice big check each month so you can continue to do those things!"

Screw that!

No goodies just because you managed to survive being a selfish asshole and never got a clue for your entire life.

I find it interesting that you call speaking about a very specific type of person a generalization.

What percentage of people, those who have not saved for retirement and alienated everyone, do you think my generalization applies to since you dismiss it as such? What percentage of the population do you think I am advocating being hearless and inhuman to?

I have to say that your own reasoning is very telling here. You think that when circumstances dictate, you can ignore the rules and treat others badly. I consider that far worse than what I have advocated. I merely advocate letting people who act in a thoughtless and selfish manner reap what they have sown. You do no such thing. You declare that because someone does not think as you like, you have a right to ignore rules and treat them badly.

I find it interesting that you call speaking about a very specific type of person a generalization.

Who will decide if the old drunk gets Social Security.

What percentage of people, those who have not saved for retirement and alienated everyone, do you think my generalization applies to since you dismiss it as such? What percentage of the population do you think I am advocating being hearless and inhuman to?

You included Grandma as well,

Quote:

We don't have to include Social Security if it is abolished. What sort of country are we where the elderly have half the poverty rate of their children while being retired?!? We take food out of the mouths of children to feed grandma. Again if we believe, as you said, that we can never be 100% safe and must hold our principles above fear and security, we must allow people to care for and fend for themselves.

So what in your mind did grandma do wrong?

I have no idea what percentage you apply to your anger, you never stated it, just threw out miserable drunk old people that should rot and die.
I believe you mean it.
I stand by my ad-hom.

Where do you get elderly, I assume you mean retired, have half the poverty rate of their children.
That's a leap in logic I don't get.
I'll assume again that you mean if grandpa, grandma are miserable deadbeats, their kids are as well.

Abolishing Social Security is a non starter, never happen.

I never said anything about never being 100% safe.

Your view of America the way you think it should be would be a catastrophe period.

My writing was clear. It clearly did not implicate anyone who was merely retirement age.

Quote:

So what in your mind did grandma do wrong?

A person who has had a lifetime to prepare for the years they desire to not work, or due to age might be able to work should not take from a child who done nothing wrong and had no chance to make their way into the world yet.

Quote:

I have no idea what percentage you apply to your anger, you never stated it, just threw out miserable drunk old people that should rot and die.
I believe you mean it.
I stand by my ad-hom.

I never said I was angry. You read that tone into my words. Miserable old drunk people who have alienated and spent away the labor, or non-labor of their lives should not be given the seed corn as it were to continue making their mistakes.

Enjoy your ad-hom.

Quote:

Where do you get elderly, I assume you mean retired, have half the poverty rate of their children.
That's a leap in logic I don't get.
I'll assume again that you mean if grandpa, grandma are miserable deadbeats, their kids are as well.

No I mean exactly what this graph easily shows.

As you can see the poverty rate for the elderly is down to 10%, and is below the national poverty rate.

The poverty rate for the elderly used to be nearly 30%. The poverty rate for children around the same time frame has gone from roughly 17% to at times above 20% and back to the current 17%.

Meanwhile the elderly poverty rate as dropped to just above 10%.

Don't assume. Your ability to think in a linear fashion is already seriously challenged. My point is very clear. When attempting to fight poverty, you direct your resources at children and not at the elderly. The government does not judge and has subsidized many bad personal decisions that have multiplied the number of people undertaking them as a result.

Until you respond to me SDW, your right to call people absolute jokes is hereby revoked. In fact, you, sir, are an absolute joke.

? I lost you. What did I fail to respond to?

Quote:

Originally Posted by segovius

I think that's out of order actually. He's ok - he takes a lot of crap and maybe gets hacked off. Happens to us all, seems to be the rules of the game here that it always ends up getting personal...your post is a classic example of it actually.

I don't share the views of Trump and SDW or Jubeium even but one thing's for sure, they take a lot of crap and - imo - handle it admirably.

I find it curious that the posters whose views I most oppose are actually the ones who handle the crap thrown at them the best most times and as such I would say that the three I named above (as well as a few others on 'the Right') are among the posters I most respect here - far more than the vast majority of 'liberals' who in the main are the more juvenile, uniformed and the first to resort to personal attacks.

Not all of them certainly but a significant number. It's also a better bet to actually have a real debate with the wongers here than with the 'lefties' - seems that way to me anyway so maybe we should lay off the ad homs and see how things appear then....just an idea....

Thanks. I think.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

I'm walking into this one a little late. Are you opposed to love-marriages? I would like to hear more of this.

No, I'm simply talking about the history of marriage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by southside grabowski

I'm not talking about the welfare culture. I am talking about people who work hard everyday for little money. The welfare people will be fine when they are old. They will just stay on welfare!

Why would a person work hard, everyday for little money for their entirely lifetime, never attempt to change or improve their current situation, and then somehow imagine that turning 65 will change this fact?

The reasoning there is ridiculous. It is like couples who believe being married will somehow fix all their relationship problems. Changing a number or a status doesn't fix who you are and what you do.

Liberal reluctance to confront this sheer horror is the result, I think, of a deep reticence about some furtive concept of "race." It is subconsciously assumed that a critique of political Islam is an attack on people with brown skins. One notes in passing that any such concession implicitly denies or negates Islam's claim to be a universal religion. Indeed, some of its own exponents certainly do speak as if they think of it as a tribal property. And, at any rate, in practice, so it is. The fascistic subculture that has taken root in Britain and that lives by violence and hatred is composed of two main elements. One is a refugee phenomenon, made up of shady exiles from the Middle East and Asia who are exploiting London's traditional hospitality, and one is the projection of an immigrant group that has its origins in a particularly backward and reactionary part of Pakistan.

To the shame-faced white-liberal refusal to confront these facts, one might counterpose a few observations. The first is that we were warned for years of the danger, by Britons also of Asian descent such as Hanif Kureishi, Monica Ali, and Salman Rushdie. They knew what the village mullahs looked like and sounded like, and they said as much. Not long ago, I was introduced to Nadeem Aslam, whose book Maps for Lost Lovers is highly recommended.

Liberal reluctance to confront this sheer horror is the result, I think, of a deep reticence about some furtive concept of "race." It is subconsciously assumed that a critique of political Islam is an attack on people with brown skins. One notes in passing that any such concession implicitly denies or negates Islam's claim to be a universal religion. Indeed, some of its own exponents certainly do speak as if they think of it as a tribal property. And, at any rate, in practice, so it is. The fascistic subculture that has taken root in Britain and that lives by violence and hatred is composed of two main elements. One is a refugee phenomenon, made up of shady exiles from the Middle East and Asia who are exploiting London's traditional hospitality, and one is the projection of an immigrant group that has its origins in a particularly backward and reactionary part of Pakistan.

To the shame-faced white-liberal refusal to confront these facts, one might counterpose a few observations. The first is that we were warned for years of the danger, by Britons also of Asian descent such as Hanif Kureishi, Monica Ali, and Salman Rushdie. They knew what the village mullahs looked like and sounded like, and they said as much. Not long ago, I was introduced to Nadeem Aslam, whose book Maps for Lost Lovers is highly recommended.

Nick

Hitches does not wear duck shaped glasses.

He has a special pair: one lens sees through a right-wing filter which is updated regularly by a direct link to Bush HQ, the other is 'anti-religion' shaped - well actually it is merely round but it is connected to his underpants by a microscopic wire which heats up to intolerable levels whenever anyone mentions the word.

Luckily this is not as bad as it could be as unfortunately he is also as blind as the proverbial bat so it doesn't really matter either way.

Over in Britain we tend to humour him when he describes his 'penetrating vision' which is perhaps why he fled to the US.

What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad

trumptman;1106423]My writing was clear. It clearly did not implicate anyone who was merely retirement age.

Just let those you deem unjustified for a pension to rot and die.

Quote:

A person who has had a lifetime to prepare for the years they desire to not work, or due to age might be able to work should not take from a child who done nothing wrong and had no chance to make their way into the world yet.

What has grandma taken from children?
It seems to me the Bush Administration has taken more than Social Security has.
Paying for Iraq loaded the debt on these children.

Quote:

I never said I was angry. You read that tone into my words. Miserable old drunk people who have alienated and spent away the labor, or non-labor of their lives should not be given the seed corn as it were to continue making their mistakes.

And what would you do with these miserable old drunk people?
Oh yeah, let them rot and die.

Quote:

Enjoy your ad-hom.

Wasn't meant for me to enjoy.

Quote:

No I mean exactly what this graph easily shows.
As you can see the poverty rate for the elderly is down to 10%, and is below the national poverty rate.
The poverty rate for the elderly used to be nearly 30%. The poverty rate for children around the same time frame has gone from roughly 17% to at times above 20% and back to the current 17%.

Meanwhile the elderly poverty rate as dropped to just above 10%.

Social security is indexed to inflation.
All about the curve, more rich people retiring and the middle class not moving up fast enough.

Quote:

However, the median income of working-age households—those headed by someone less than 65—fell 0.5% last year, as has been the case consistently since 2000. In addition, today's report reveals that the median earnings of both men and women fell significantly in 2005, by 1.8% for men and 1.3% for women. Together, these facts suggest that working families fell behind in 2005.

In fact, the only households with significant gains in 2005 were those headed by someone 65 or older, whose median income was up sharply by 2.8%. It will take more analysis to evaluate the source of this growth, but given the negative earnings outcomes, it is likely their gains came from non-labor income, including Social Security (a benefit that is automatically indexed to inflation).

Don't assume. Your ability to think in a linear fashion is already seriously challenged. My point is very clear. When attempting to fight poverty, you direct your resources at children and not at the elderly. The government does not judge and has subsidized many bad personal decisions that have multiplied the number of people undertaking them as a result.

Nick

And your solution is to let some rot and die, hopefully not in the street.
Maybe round up the miserable fucks and truck them out to the desert somewhere.

When you say direct resources to the children, isn't that another entitlement program you right wingers hate?

You want me to explain, you elaborate, a woman doesn't have three children all alone.

Really, whoda thunk!

Quote:

The percentage of children being raised in a single parent household was 7% in th 60's. It is 24%+ now depending upon what numbers you use.

The government subsidizes it and it grows. In the past people would simply arrange themselves into family units to survive. Marriage being about love is a relatively modern concept.

Nick

So the government is responsible for increased divorce rates, single parents, not the culture? Gotcha! Please show us all some statistics on single parent households demographics wrt income, wrt race, two income earners versus one, etceteras.

And you might stop watching Logan's Run 247 for the old and the poor, TYVM.

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!

It might be a test of ministerial mettle if thousands of British Muslims were burning cars every night, as has happened in France. But what we seem to have here is some foreigners burning just one car and failing to burn two more owing to almost unbelievable incompetence.

The mindset of a man who's willing to set himself on fire to make a point - as one of the Glasgow terror-clowns seems to have done - but not to spend any effort at all on researching methods is a difficult one to understand. Even if these jokers were illiterate or had no internet access (seems unlikely, one of the suspects is apparently a doctor) they could have at least done a test. In my part of town, fun-loving teenagers burn out a car or two down by the canal every week or so: nobody would notice another one with some nails in it.

Really, I don't want to make light of it. Because of the unpredictability of the real bad guys and of more sophisticated attacks. But you have to admit that these acts were the most stupid, inept and undeniably amateurish terror "attacks" since...well...uh, this guy...

But here we go...the media is in a frenzy, the police are busting anyone that has a hyphenated name...and still nobody has claimed responsibility or has given a reason for these attacks. Probably too embarrassed.

I'm not talking about the welfare culture. I am talking about people who work hard everyday for little money. The welfare people will be fine when they are old. They will just stay on welfare!

Would that be that 2.1% of the population that actually recieved Welfare checks. That WHOPPING, ASTRONIMICAL, THEY'RE PULLING THE NATION DOWN, 2.1%?!?!

I didn't realize so few people could impact politics in our country.

I mean, 11% of the population is classified as "officially poor" and only 4.2% of the population is classified as "impoverished". So only HALF of those who are considered "impoverished" actually apply and receive any monetary assistance by the federal government.

And you people are going fucking insane over this extremely small percentage of the population?

You guys are full of crap. The system works. Get over it.

"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."

It might be a test of ministerial mettle if thousands of British Muslims were burning cars every night, as has happened in France. But what we seem to have here is some foreigners burning just one car and failing to burn two more owing to almost unbelievable incompetence.

The mindset of a man who's willing to set himself on fire to make a point - as one of the Glasgow terror-clowns seems to have done - but not to spend any effort at all on researching methods is a difficult one to understand. Even if these jokers were illiterate or had no internet access (seems unlikely, one of the suspects is apparently a doctor) they could have at least done a test. In my part of town, fun-loving teenagers burn out a car or two down by the canal every week or so: nobody would notice another one with some nails in it.

Really, I don't want to make light of it. Because of the unpredictability of the real bad guys and of more sophisticated attacks. But you have to admit that these acts were the most stupid, inept and undeniably amateurish terror "attacks" since...well...uh, this guy...

But here we go...the media is in a frenzy, the police are busting anyone that has a hyphenated name...and still nobody has claimed responsibility or has given a reason for these attacks. Probably too embarrassed.

Really, I don't want to make light of it. Because of the unpredictability of the real bad guys and of more sophisticated attacks. But you have to admit that these acts were the most stupid, inept and undeniably amateurish terror "attacks" since...well...uh, this guy...

But here we go...the media is in a frenzy, the police are busting anyone that has a hyphenated name...and still nobody has claimed responsibility or has given a reason for these attacks. Probably too embarrassed.

... chaos!

BTW, I usually only read stuff from The Register with the at least one reference to boffin.

However, I did read some of it, but no boffins, ho hum.

What's worse, war or terror? Isn't war terror? WoT has got to be the biggest oxymoron, why is everything a "war on ... " anyway?

Was there mass death and destruction? No.

I will now predict the future: Massive expositions occur across the USA on July 4th!

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!

Governments are willing to manipulate public opinion through violence directed at civilians?
You nutcase.

There was no violence aimed at civilians. No-one got hurt. No-one was intended to.

Besides, my point was that this was manipulating BROWN - not the public this time. What you have to remember is that certain segments of Government are actually a Mafia-like bunch of gangsters. It's how they think and how they act - and yes, when all else fails they kill people. Other than Muslims I mean.

What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad